It is also a way to comfort a widow who has recently lost their husband in the battle for cancer, donating millions to the underprivileged across the globe and one of humanity's first steps to a proper civilization.

And it also creates segregation, is telling people that AIDS is caused by condoms, and has let a lot of children get raped by those to whom their care was entrusted.
But hey, at least it comforts some people right?

But a lot of people would argue that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would be truthful because they're basically eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and the majority of the events that are described in them have been proven by historians to be true.

Jesus could very well have existed, but I think he was an ordinary man whose followers made him out to be the Messias and shit.

Gods are a concept in the human mind that was designed so it cannot be argued with logic and reason, thus you can't prove or disprove the existance of gods.
That's mainly the reason religion requires such heavy amounts of faith, you need to shut down logic to be able to believe in a god/gods.

Personally I don't like the concept of a god, it just creates more questions that need to be answered.

That's wrong. You can't prove god exists, and you can't prove he doesn't. The whole point is having faith that an "unexplained" act is the result of god's will, the mere fact that the only thing telling you God did it is your faith makes it impossible to rightfully push other people to believe the same thing if they don't share the same faith as you in the first place.

I didn't say there was evidence specifically disproving god, I was saying there's evidence that contradicts claims in the bible which state that there is a god. Genesis says the world was created in a few days, science has proven that the world was not created over a few days, but over billions of years.

So religion is exempt from the rules that bind everything else? Like physics and logic?

If I wrote a book claiming that you need to have faith in something, and in my book I defied the laws of physics, made unscientific clams, and spouted a ton of illogic nonsense, does that make me valid because I'm writing about religion?

Remember when I told you to stop lumping all Christians in with fundamentalists? Because you obviously weren't listening.

All the gospels describe these miracles from different people's account who actually saw these take place. And the fact that they're from different viewpoints with slight contradictions mean that there was no corroboration involved either.

All the gospels describe these miracles from different people's account who actually saw these take place. And the fact that they're from different viewpoints with slight contradictions mean that there was no corroboration involved either.

Yeah but if you're religious and really believe in god, you would take "God's word" over human evidence. That's how religion works.

Ok and if I wrote a book claiming that I am the mouth of god, my book has now taken priority over scientific evidence. With this im free to tell society what to do and I can say anyone who questions me is going to burn for eternity. My book is now more valid than scientific evidence right?

The logic is basically "If you don't believe in what this book says, you will suffer eternal torture in Hell. You don't want to go to hell, do you? Proof? Yeahh... Oh look, this candle just lit up by itself."

All the gospels describe these miracles from different people's account who actually saw these take place. And the fact that they're from different viewpoints with slight contradictions mean that there was no corroboration involved either.

The problem I have with this was that these stories were written down after being told by mouth for 600 years. Even while writing everything down and with all our technology we still have a hard time being accurate about what happened 600 years ago.

All the gospels describe these miracles from different people's account who actually saw these take place. And the fact that they're from different viewpoints with slight contradictions mean that there was no corroboration involved either.